It's about the supression, stupid!

[tlongII]

Prove it.

Links.

Data.

Hopefully some peer reviewed papers, but hey, I will take a credible report on % of fraudulent in-person votes cast.

Illegal Immigration Statistics:
2012 - The Department of Homeland Security estimates that there are 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States, down from 11.5 million in 2011.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/us/imm...cs-fast-facts/

That's really all you need to know.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I would ask for the same regarding the problem of getting ID.

Last week, we reported on a Government Accountability Office report indicating that some 100,000 fewer people voted in Kansas and Tennessee due to the introduction of voter ID laws in those states. The decline was weighted more heavily toward younger voters and black voters — or, to be clear, more-Democratic voters (the kind Democrats accuse the laws of targeting).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...d-voter-fraud/

I can find a LOT more if you would like. Compare and contrast with the high water mark of 24 cases of voter fraud in a single election that would be solved by ID's discovered ever.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/us/imm...cs-fast-facts/

That's really all you need to know.

Fearmongering on illegals. Nice.

[tlongII]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...d-voter-fraud/

I can find a LOT more if you would like. Compare and contrast with the high water mark of 24 cases of voter fraud in a single election that would be solved by ID's discovered ever.

I see nothing there that equates that to the cost of getting ID. It's more likely that they're too lazy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I see nothing there that equates that to the cost of getting ID. It's more likely that they're too lazy.

You keep focusing on the tree and be intentionally obtuse while the forest is all around you. I know you don't understand it but those figures subsume your take.

[tlongII]

You keep focusing on the tree and be intentionally obtuse while the forest is all around you. I know you don't understand it but those figures subsume your take.

Those figures were pretty common across the country regardless of whether a voter ID law existed or not.

[Yonivore]

Why are we one of the few (if not the only) developed country that doesn't universally offer health insurance to all it's citizens?

I noticed you neatly sidestepped trying to prove that voter ID laws actually solve a problem that exists in the real world. Why is that?

I asked a simple question. Why does everyone else require it?

I think it does prevent fraudulent voting.

And, it's not that costly. Certainly doesn't bend the cost curve like Obamacare.

[Yonivore]

Interesting articles...

No, Voting Laws Didn't Doom Democrats

A day after the election, Wendy Weiser at the Brennan Center for Justice argued that “in several key races, the margin of victory came very close to the likely margin of disenfranchisement.” She cited the Senate race in North Carolina as one example; here’s the gist of her argument: Four years ago, 200,000 ballots were cast during seven days of early voting that the state has since eliminated. The state also ended Election Day registration, which 100,000 North Carolinians took advantage of in 2012, almost one-third of them black. In last week’s election, since Republican Thom Tillis’s margin of victory over Democratic Senator Kay Hagan was about 48,000 votes, Weiser implies that Hagan lost because so many (Democratic) voters were kept away from the polls.

Weiser’s argument has been picked up by other voting-rights advocates and pundits, but it falls apart upon closer scrutiny. Even with seven fewer days, early voting in North Carolina increased this year compared with 2010 -- by 35 percent.

Statewide turnout also increased from the previous midterm election, to 44.1 percent from 43.7 percent. Even if turnout was lower than it would have been without the new voting law -- something that's impossible to establish -- it was still higher than it had been in four of the five previous midterm elections, going back to 1994.

In addition, based on exit polls and voter turnout data, the overall share of the black vote increased slightly compared with 2010.

And, to my point in another thread but, just as relevant here...

HOLDER DOJ EXPERT WITNESS: BLACKS ARE DUMBER AND LESS CIVIC-MINDED THAN WHITES

An expert witness hired by Eric Holder’s Department of Justice testified that North Carolina election law requirements have an adverse impact on black voters because they are less “sophisticated” than white voters and therefore have more difficulty figuring out how to register to vote. Christian Adams has the details.

The requirements that the DOJ’s witness found blacks less able than whites to comply with are (1) registering to vote before the day of the election and (2) voting in the precinct where one lives. Since one needn’t be at all “sophisticated” to comply with either requirement, the DOJ’s witness, who was paid with our tax dollars, must have little regard for African-Americans.

It's not the suppression, stupid.

[RandomGuy]

I asked a simple question. Why does everyone else require it?

I think it does prevent fraudulent voting.

And, it's not that costly. Certainly doesn't bend the cost curve like Obamacare.

I really don't know why any other country requires it.

I don't have to know what is going on in other countries to determine a reasonable course of action in this case though.

Prove this fraud exists to such a degree that it requires ANY additional cost.

You say it is a problem. Prove the scope. Your assertion, your burden of proof. It is a simple request, that any intellectually honest person would attempt to show, if pushing for a policy solution to an existing problem.

My prediction:
You know in-person voter fraud it isn't a real problem that affects elections to any degree, and that you can't find the evidence of any widespread problem, since it doesn't exist. You will therefore dissemble, and either ignore this request, or try to divert the conversation away from your burden of proof in this case, generally an indication of intellectual dishonesty.

[RandomGuy]

Interesting articles...

No, Voting Laws Didn't Doom Democrats



And, to my point in another thread but, just as relevant here...

HOLDER DOJ EXPERT WITNESS: BLACKS ARE DUMBER AND LESS CIVIC-MINDED THAN WHITES


It's not the suppression, stupid.

My point is not that voter suppression efforts by Republicans swing elections. Your first article misses the mark. My point is that it happens, and it is a deliberate attempt to suppress voting blocks that might vote Democratic. I find that reprehensible, and you should too. This is known as a red herring logical fallacy, by the way.

Secondly, I reject your blog that the expert witness said "blacks are dumber and less civic minded than whites". That is one bloggers interpretation of what someone else said. Less educated, does not make someone dumb. Personally that smacks of the kind of elitism to me. I thought you hated that sort of thing.

The actual quote:

It's also the case that -- well, yes, so it would, empirically more likely affect African Americans. Also, understanding within political science, that people who register to vote the closer and closer one gets to Election Day tend to be less sophisticated voters, tend to be less educated voters, tend to be voters who are less attuned to public affairs. That also tells me from the literature of political science that there are likely to be people who will end up not registering and not voting. People who correspond to those factors tend to be African Americans, and, therefore, that's another vehicle through which African Americans would be disproportionately affected by this law.

Thing is:

He is right. That African-Americans tend to, as a population, be less educated is borne out by all available data.

Second thing is:

Still irrelevant to the point of the OP. Another red herring.

But hey, let's roll with that.

Do you think, therefore, they are less deserving of a vote somehow?

[RandomGuy]

My prediction:
You know in-person voter fraud it isn't a real problem that affects elections to any degree, and that you can't find the evidence of any widespread problem, since it doesn't exist. You will therefore dissemble, and either ignore this request, or try to divert the conversation away from your burden of proof in this case, generally an indication of intellectual dishonesty.

I swear I didn't see your post until I hit return for mine.

That is too funny. Way to pwn yourself, dude.

[Yonivore]

I really don't know why any other country requires it.

I don't have to know what is going on in other countries to determine a reasonable course of action in this case though.

So, you only point to the practices of other countries when it supports your ideas?

Prove this fraud exists to such a degree that it requires ANY additional cost.

The 2000 Presidential Election was decided by about 500-600 votes in a single precinct in one state. All elections are local and you only have to corrupt a very few, in targeted areas, to make a huge difference.

Those targeted areas seem to be Florida, Ohio, and Illinois, where voting irregularities seem to always crop up during elections. Whether it be malfunctioning voting machines or greater than 100% participation in certain precincts.

You say it is a problem. Prove the scope. Your assertion, your burden of proof. It is a simple request, that any intellectually honest person would attempt to show, if pushing for a policy solution to an existing problem.

Scope and consequences are not necessarily related. You only need to cheat in a few precincts in targeted battleground states. That's it.

My prediction:
You know in-person voter fraud it isn't a real problem that affects elections to any degree, and that you can't find the evidence of any widespread problem, since it doesn't exist. You will therefore dissemble, and either ignore this request, or try to divert the conversation away from your burden of proof in this case, generally an indication of intellectual dishonesty.

My prediction:
You will never admit the fraud doesn't need to be widespread to achieve the desired results.

And, I think there is enough evidence of irregularities in Ohio, during the last Presidential election, to suspect the outcome there.

[Yonivore]

My point is not that voter suppression efforts by Republicans swing elections. Your first article misses the mark. My point is that it happens, and it is a deliberate attempt to suppress voting blocks that might vote Democratic. I find that reprehensible, and you should too. This is known as a red herring logical fallacy, by the way.

The point is suppression didn't occur where alleged and it's doubtful it occurs, at all, in the manner you suggest. To say it does suggests minorities are too stupid to figure out how to vote.

Secondly, I reject your blog that the expert witness said "blacks are dumber and less civic minded than whites". That is one bloggers interpretation of what someone else said. Less educated, does not make someone dumb. Personally that smacks of the kind of elitism to me. I thought you hated that sort of thing.

I think that's exactly what he says.

Why does less educated translate to an inability to vote?

[Yonivore]

And, once again, Spurstalk devolves into personal attacks.

James O'Keefe provided a few examples of voter fraud during the last election. Just how widespread do you believe it needs to be, to affect the outcome of an election?

[RandomGuy]

So, you only point to the practices of other countries when it supports your ideas?


The 2000 Presidential Election was decided by about 500-600 votes in a single precinct in one state. All elections are local and you only have to corrupt a very few, in targeted areas, to make a huge difference.

Those targeted areas seem to be Florida, Ohio, and Illinois, where voting irregularities seem to always crop up during elections. Whether it be malfunctioning voting machines or greater than 100% participation in certain precincts.


Scope and consequences are not necessarily related. You only need to cheat in a few precincts in targeted battleground states. That's it.


My prediction:
You will never admit the fraud doesn't need to be widespread to achieve the desired results.

And, I think there is enough evidence of irregularities in Ohio, during the last Presidential election, to suspect the outcome there.

and.... no where in all of that is any evidence whatsoever of the kinds of problems you assert requires some new law.

I will ask a second time for any evidence that there is some wide-spread problem with in-person voter fraud, that voter ID laws would fix.

Evidence of fraud that would not be prevented by voter ID laws does not really support your contention.

[RandomGuy]

And, once again, Spurstalk devolves into personal attacks.

James O'Keefe provided a few examples of voter fraud during the last election. Just how widespread do you believe it needs to be, to affect the outcome of an election?

He has proven to be actively dishonest in the way he selectively edits his material, and even he didn't have any evidence that anyone was showing up to vote pretending to be someone else, did he?

[DarrinS]

It's impossible to commit voter fraud. That tight

[RandomGuy]

So, you only point to the practices of other countries when it supports your ideas?


The 2000 Presidential Election was decided by about 500-600 votes in a single precinct in one state. All elections are local and you only have to corrupt a very few, in targeted areas, to make a huge difference.

Those targeted areas seem to be Florida, Ohio, and Illinois, where voting irregularities seem to always crop up during elections. Whether it be malfunctioning voting machines or greater than 100% participation in certain precincts.


Scope and consequences are not necessarily related. You only need to cheat in a few precincts in targeted battleground states. That's it.


My prediction:
You will never admit the fraud doesn't need to be widespread to achieve the desired results.

And, I think there is enough evidence of irregularities in Ohio, during the last Presidential election, to suspect the outcome there.

Setting aside the issue of different types of fraud for purposes of discussion:

No one could know ahead of time, precisely which local elections will turn out to be the pivotal ones in such a case. Any such fraud would have to, therefore, be fairly wide spread to be effective, and consequently easier to detect. Even granting your point, your argument is still flawed.

[Spurminator]

And, once again, Spurstalk devolves into personal attacks.

James O'Keefe provided a few examples of voter fraud during the last election. Just how widespread do you believe it needs to be, to affect the outcome of an election?

No he didn't, he proved that people in a private conversation could speculate on how to commit fraud.

[Spurminator]

Honestly, reverse the gerrymandering of 14 years ago and outlaw it completely moving forward, and I'm willing to accept stronger voter ID laws. That's a trade I'd make in a heartbeat.

[ElNono]

I've said it before, tbh... I don't have a problem in general with Voter ID laws... I do have a problem with Voter ID laws that are passed 6-8 months before the actual election, which seems to be a recurring theme. That reeks of disenfranchisement.

[DarrinS]

How many fraudulent votes does it take to disenfranchise one legitimate vote?

[Yonivore]

and.... no where in all of that is any evidence whatsoever of the kinds of problems you assert requires some new law.

I will ask a second time for any evidence that there is some wide-spread problem with in-person voter fraud, that voter ID laws would fix.

Evidence of fraud that would not be prevented by voter ID laws does not really support your contention.

And, I'm telling you it doesn't have to be WIDESPREAD.

Why don't we agree to disagree.

[Spurminator]

And, I'm telling you it doesn't have to be WIDESPREAD.

It should at least be more widespread than the number of voters for whom legitimate voting becomes more difficult. Which number is bigger?

[Yonivore]

Setting aside the issue of different types of fraud for purposes of discussion:

No one could know ahead of time, precisely which local elections will turn out to be the pivotal ones in such a case. Any such fraud would have to, therefore, be fairly wide spread to be effective, and consequently easier to detect. Even granting your point, your argument is still flawed.

I disagree.

There are only a few battleground states each national election. And, for the most part, those battleground states are divided by largely conservative/Republican in rural areas and liberal/Democrat in urban areas. You can cheat; otherwise the Duke of Duval wouldn't have unearthed all those dead people for JFK and Chicago wouldn't empty their cemeteries every election.


DMV search of records turns up ineligible N.C. voters
Why would foreign nationals be registered to vote?